---
title: "Core Web Vitals and rankings: what the correlation shows"
url: https://seomadman.com/research/core-web-vitals-ranking-correlation-2026
section: research
published: 2026-07-19T00:00:00.000Z
modified: 2026-07-19T00:00:00.000Z
author: Adam Hafez
topics: ["Technical SEO"]
---

# Core Web Vitals and rankings: what the correlation shows

## The short answer

CrUX data puts Core Web Vitals pass rates at 48% of mobile origins and 56% of desktop origins as of July 2025. A separate 2,500-keyword study found position 1 pages pass Core Web Vitals about 10 points more than position 9 pages. Google says relevance wins even with sub-par page experience, so the honest reading is association, not proof.

## Key takeaways

- The 2025 Web Almanac, built on CrUX data from July 2025, found 48% of mobile origins and 56% of desktop origins pass all three Core Web Vitals.
- LCP is the weakest of the three metrics on mobile, with only 62% of mobile origins passing it compared with 77% for INP and 81% for CLS.
- A Screaming Frog study of 2,500 keywords and roughly 20,000 URLs found position 1 results pass Core Web Vitals near 19-20% of the time against 10-11% for positions 5 through 9.
- Google's own documentation says it shows the most relevant content even when page experience is sub-par, which caps how much weight a correlation study can imply.
- Sites that rank well and pass Core Web Vitals often share a third cause, such as engineering investment, so the gap is not proof that fixing LCP alone moves rankings.

Every few months a number resurfaces that sounds too clean to be true: some precise share of the
web passes Core Web Vitals, and pages that pass supposedly rank higher because of it. Both halves
of that claim exist in real data. Neither half says what the SEO folklore around it usually claims.

## What the field data actually says

The Chrome UX Report is the only public, large-scale measurement of how real visitors experience
real pages, and the clearest citable read of it comes from the HTTP Archive's Web Almanac. Its 2025
performance chapter, built on CrUX data through July 2025, puts the share of origins passing all
three Core Web Vitals at 48% on mobile and 56% on desktop. Broken down by metric, mobile LCP is the
weak link at 62% passing, against 77% for INP and 81% for CLS.

A widely repeated figure claiming 55.9% of origins passed as of May 2026 circulated in search
results while researching this piece. It could not be traced to the CrUX dashboard, the HTTP
Archive, or any outlet citing CrUX data directly, only to secondary blog posts restating each
other. It is not used here for that reason.

## What the correlation study found, and what it does not prove

A Screaming Frog analysis pulled Core Web Vitals status for roughly 20,000 URLs ranking across
2,500 keywords in UK search results, using the PageSpeed Insights API against CrUX data. Position 1
results passed Core Web Vitals near 19-20% of the time; positions 5 through 9 flattened to roughly
10-11%, a gap the study's own author describes as unlikely to mean Core Web Vitals is a hidden major
ranking factor.

That hedge matters. A pre-filtered set of already-ranking URLs will tend to skew toward sites with
more resources across the board: better hosting, more engineering attention, more mature content
operations. A faster page and a higher-ranking page can share a cause without either one causing the
other, and this study's sample size and single-country, single-snapshot design mean it has not been
replicated at a scale that would settle the question either way.

## What Google itself says

Google's own page experience documentation is unambiguous about the ordering: Search "always seeks
to show the most relevant content, even if the page experience is sub-par." Page experience is
described as something that can help decide between pages that are already similarly relevant, not
a signal that competes with relevance directly. That statement, from the party that controls the
ranking system being studied, is the strongest available evidence for how much weight Core Web
Vitals actually carries, and it is consistent with both datasets above: real, measurable, and
secondary to content.

## What this means for prioritizing the work

Treat Core Web Vitals as a floor, not a lever. If a site is failing LCP or INP outright, that is a
defensible, evidence-backed fix: it removes a plausible tie-breaking disadvantage and, separately,
protects conversion and user experience regardless of what it does to rankings. But do not sell
Core Web Vitals work to a client or a stakeholder on the promise of a ranking jump from a passing
score alone. The field data shows roughly half of origins already pass; the correlation data shows
an association among sites that were already competing well; and Google says relevance decides
first. Fix real failures, measure the outcome you actually control, such as bounce rate or
conversion, and keep the ranking claim honest.

## Sources

1. [Page experience and Search ranking](https://developers.google.com/search/docs/appearance/page-experience) - Google Search Central (primary)
2. [Performance | 2025 | The Web Almanac](https://almanac.httparchive.org/en/2025/performance) - HTTP Archive (primary)
3. [How Many Sites Actually Pass The Core Web Vitals Assessment?](https://www.screamingfrog.co.uk/blog/passing-the-cwv-assessment/) - Screaming Frog